From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org (smtp1.osuosl.org [140.211.166.138]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C05CAC0001 for ; Sat, 6 Mar 2021 21:55:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with UTF8SMTP id A7B3D827AF for ; Sat, 6 Mar 2021 21:55:20 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.1 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.1 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: smtp1.osuosl.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=mattcorallo.com Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp1.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with UTF8SMTP id X8OEZTutwQZe for ; Sat, 6 Mar 2021 21:55:20 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 Received: from mail.as397444.net (mail.as397444.net [69.59.18.99]) by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with UTF8SMTPS id E2E47827AA for ; Sat, 6 Mar 2021 21:55:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail.as397444.net (Postfix) with UTF8SMTPSA id 6CC854CD4E9; Sat, 6 Mar 2021 21:55:18 +0000 (UTC) X-DKIM-Note: Keys used to sign are likely public at https://as397444.net/dkim/ DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mattcorallo.com; s=1615065664; t=1615067718; bh=RcAig6CJ9w2OfILaU6n6FD9bS18vUOq8YHWmfpegIkk=; h=Date:Subject:To:References:From:In-Reply-To:From; b=IYNYTlC3W5Qevwd1LRL9A1Y2vRiiypzFWDSNX4Kf+ySGh0kIT78JeNYVjlzKH578l xw4yV1JGn8w8Vtde4lLcjhaet4cq4F+UD5fE7G5+J6iu/XVfXRD7cAftua1qS2VP+u lxu3h6cvmJlFp4envI3xYmmMZNuddfpFNixAE/4naj6tRLqS+ukhK+wfA2FgFbZ1BS fnDvNzVRpJB8zez879Wt5GEKfPh0BYyDIn0C/EHNFonJbn6clXKRvCs28JPksDbg9d oQ6xMeBJ5Y/Wm81yENmlBXXPC+tZJe4hnehJRdOBFnuRLztxY+L0aFQ3s/5MuASBGH spsvAYt9Vyp7A== Message-ID: Date: Sat, 6 Mar 2021 16:55:18 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Language: en-US To: Michael Folkson , Dave Harding , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion References: From: Matt Corallo In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Taproot activation proposal "Speedy Trial" X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 06 Mar 2021 21:55:20 -0000 On 3/6/21 14:56, Michael Folkson wrote: > Hi Matt > > > I'm really unsure that three months is a short enough time window that there wouldn't be a material effort to split > the network with divergent consensus rules. Instead, a three month window is certainly long enough to organize and make > a lot of noise around such an effort, given BIP 148 was organized and reached its peak within a similar such window. > > I'm not sure either. I can't control anyone other than myself. I think (and Luke has also stated on IRC) that trying a > UASF (LOT=true) during a "Speedy Trial" deployment would be crazy. I would certainly recommend no one tries that but I > can't stop anyone. I'll repeat that soft forks have and always will contain some limited chain split risk regardless of > activation mechanism. I think you are well intentioned but I'm not sure if you've fully grasped that yet. Maybe you have > and I'm missing something. > > > Worse, because the obvious alternative after a three month activation failure is a significant delay prior to > activation, the vocal UASF minority may be encouraged to pursue such a route to avoid such a delay. > > Again I can only speak for myself but I wouldn't support a UASF until this "fail fast" Speedy Trial has completed and > failed. Luke agrees with that and other people (eg proofofkeags) on the ##uasf IRC channel have also supported this > "Speedy Trial" proposal. If you want me (or anyone else for that matter) to guarantee there won't be an attempted UASF > during a Speedy Trial deployment obviously nobody can do that. All I can say is that personally I won't support one. That's great to hear. > The parameters for Speedy Trial are being hammered out on IRC as we speak. I'd encourage you to engage with those > discussions. I'd really like to avoid a scenario where we have broad consensus on the details of Speedy Trial and then > you come out the woodwork weeks later with either an alternative proposal or a criticism for how the details of Speedy > Trial were finalized. > > I've read your email as you're concerned about a UASF during a Speedy Trial deployment. Other than that I think (?) you > support it and you are free to join the discussion on IRC if you have particular views on parameters. Personally I don't > think those parameters should be chosen assuming there will be a UASF during the deployment but you can argue that case > on IRC if you wish. All proposals you have personally put forward suffer from chain split risk in the face of a > competing incompatible activation mechanism. The conversations around the activation of Taproot have far outgrown a single IRC channel, let alone a single live conversation. Nor is having a discussion with under a few days latency "coming out of the wordwork weeks later". Frankly, I find this more than a little insulting. Bitcoin's consensus has never been decided in such a manner and I see no reason to start now.